STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CANDIDO ORTIZ(15-02-0059, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1398-15T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CANDIDO ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted March 22, 2017 – Decided May 26, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez and Lisa.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County,
Indictment No. 15-02-0059.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Alicia J. Hubbard, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the
brief).
Michael H. Robertson, Acting Somerset County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (James L.
McConnell, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel
and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Candido Ortiz was sentenced on September 25, 2015,
in accord with his plea agreement, to three years probation with
appropriate fines, penalties, and conditions on two counts of
third-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3. He now appeals from the
denial of his application for admission into the Pretrial
Intervention Program (PTI).1 We affirm.
The theft charges arose from defendant's shoplifting,
partially captured on video, of $664.90 worth of merchandise from
Lord & Taylor and $529.44 from Macy's. Defendant also shoplifted
from Bath & Body Works and American Eagle as part of the same
episode on the same day, however, those retailers only filed
disorderly persons complaints for shoplifting, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-
11(b)(2). Those two complaints were dismissed the day defendant
was sentenced. When arrested, defendant admitted having the stolen
items in his possession.
The PTI Director rejected defendant's application based on
Guideline 3, Rule 3:28, referring to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(8), in
that defendant's behavior "constitutes part of a continuing
pattern of anti-social behavior," and N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(9),
defendant's "record of criminal and penal violations and the extent
to which he may present a substantial danger to others." The
letter also stated:
1
Neither the written agreement nor the plea allocution preserved
defendant's right to appeal the denial of his entry into PTI. See
R. 3:9-3(f). We assume from the State's lack of objection that
it has nonetheless consented.
2 A-1398-15T3
The defendant is presently charged with two
counts of 3rd degree Theft By Unlawful Taking
and two Disorderly Persons charges of
Shoplifting. The defendant has Municipal
Court convictions from 2010 for Doing Lewd/
Offensive Act and Conduct Manifesting CDS
Transactions. He has a 2014 Municipal Court
conviction for Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia for which he was sentenced to a
1 year term of probation on 09/09/2014. He
violated probation on 3/26/2015 and his
probation was continued. He has a 2014
Municipal Court conviction for Operating a
Taxi W/O a License. He has 2015 Municipal
Court convictions for Take Merchandise From
Store W/O Intent to Pay and Taxi Cabs
Sol[ici]tation and Acceptance of Passenger.
He has pending[]charges of Conceal Merchandise
From Store W/O Intent to Pay from Bridgewater
Township that were transferred to Superior
Court on 12/04/2014. The defendant has been
unable to remain arrest free even while on
probation. Based on the foregoing
information, the Criminal Division does not
recomme[n]d admission to the PTI program.
The prosecutor issued an initial letter of denial, and, after
reviewing additional materials submitted by defendant regarding
his mental health and substance abuse issues, a second denial.
When the Law Division judge conducted a hearing on defendant's
rejection, the prosecutor offered a third letter, in which each
guideline promulgated by our Supreme Court found in Rule 3:28,
which incorporates the statutory goals found in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-
12(e), was reviewed.
The prosecutor concluded that "traditional prosecution is
warranted in [defendant's] case[,]" and that "defendant has not
3 A-1398-15T3
provided any sufficiently compelling reason to justify his
admission to PTI." [Pa23] Judge Bruce Jones agreed.
After reviewing the circumstances surrounding the offenses
as well as this fifty-two-year-old defendant's personal history
in relation to the Guidelines, Judge Jones rejected defendant's
argument that the PTI denial was a patent and gross abuse of
discretion. He opined that "[i]n light of the considerable
deference" with which a prosecutor's decision is reviewed, the
State's reasons were "legally sufficient[.]" The prosecutor's
decision did not go "so wide off the mark sought to be accomplished
by PTI" that it required judicial intervention. The State
considered all the relevant factors in reaching its decision, and
application of the guidelines to the circumstances appeared
reasonable.
On appeal, defendant essentially reiterates the same
arguments, contending that rejection from the program was a product
of misapplication of the guidelines, and was arbitrary and
capricious. In light of defendant's prior contacts with the system
and the nature of the four shopliftings on the day in question,
we do not agree.
Unquestionably PTI, a diversionary program, allows defendants
the opportunity to avoid the potential stigma of a conviction.
State v. Bell, 217 N.J. 336, 347-48 (2014). "Eligibility for PTI
4 A-1398-15T3
is broad enough to include all defendants who demonstrate
sufficient effort to effect necessary behavioral change and show
that future criminal behavior will not occur." State v. Roseman,
221 N.J. 611, 622 (2015) (quoting Pressler & Verniero, Current
N.J. Court Rules, Guideline 2 on R. 3:28 at 1167 (2015)).
However, determining which defendants should be diverted into
the PTI program "is a quintessentially prosecutorial function[.]"
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 582 (1996) (citing State v.
Dalgleesh, 86 N.J. 503, 513 (1981)). A prosecutor enjoys broad
discretion in making these decisions. State v. K.S., 220 N.J.
190, 199 (2015). The review process requires consideration of the
nonexhaustive list of seventeen statutory factors enumerated in
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e) in order to make that necessary
individualized assessment. Roseman, supra, 221 N.J. at 621-22.
A prosecutor makes a tailored assessment of a defendant's
individualized "'amenability to correction' and potential
'responsiveness to rehabilitation.'" State v. Watkins, 193 N.J.
507, 520 (2008) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(b)). A defendant may
challenge the State's rejection from PTI by demonstrating facts
or material establishing his or her amenability to the
rehabilitation process, along with any efforts to effectuate
behavioral changes to avoid future criminal conduct. N.J.S.A.
5 A-1398-15T3
2C:43-12(d). See also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court
Rules, Guideline 2 on R. 3:28 (2017).
Our review of a PTI rejection is severely limited and designed
to address "only the most egregious examples of injustice and
unfairness." State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82 (2003) (citations
omitted). A defendant bears a heavy burden on appeal, and must
clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision
is a patent and gross abuse of discretion which has gone so wide
of the mark that fundamental fairness and justice require judicial
intervention. Watkins, supra, 193 N.J. at 520. An abuse of
discretion is found when a defendant can prove "that the [PTI]
denial '(a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant
factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or
inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error of
judgment[.]'" State v. Lee, 437 N.J. Super. 555, 563 (App. Div.
2014) (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979)), certif.
denied, 222 N.J. 18 (2015).
In this case, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial
of defendant's application. Despite defendant's undisputed
current efforts to obtain treatment, his criminal history and
ongoing mental health and substance abuse problems present
challenges best addressed through probation and not PTI services.
His prior contacts with the system, in addition to the criminal
6 A-1398-15T3
conduct in which he engaged on the day in question, make him an
inappropriate candidate. Thus, there were indeed valid reasons
for denial premised on consideration of Guideline 3(e).
Moreover, PTI eligibility is ordinarily "limited to persons
who have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense."
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(a). Despite the fact that defendant's prior
contacts were all disorderly persons in nature, his arrest history
over the last seven years, including while on probation, militate
against an exception being made in his case to that general policy.
The available PTI resources could not adequately address his
circumstances. Thus we conclude, as did Judge Jones, that no
patent and gross abuse of discretion occurred in the prosecutor's
denial.
Affirmed.
7 A-1398-15T3